Energy Plan Political Pandering

[ehaase]

Energy Plan Political Pandering

Whenever Congress puts together a bill attempting to find a solution to some sort of real or imagined problem, my immediate thought is that the bill do one of four things:

It will worsen the problem at hand

It will do nothing to solve the problem but instead create a new problem somewhere else

It will worsen the original problem and create new problems

In the very best case it will do nothing at all

Consider the ethanol plan. Growing corn to produce ethanol was supposed to help make us energy independent. What happened was that subsidies to grow corn (an energy wasteful process without the subsidies), did not cause gasoline prices to drop, instead it diverted food products to inefficient energy processes. This raised the price of grain which feeds livestock and corn syrup (used in practically everything as a sweetener).

Inquiring minds may wish to consider The Case for Ending Ethanol Subsidies.

At a time of soaring food prices and concern over carbon emissions, George Bush needs to rethink his biofuel policy.

Just in time for today’s Earth Day festivities, President Bush has announced a new initiative to combat global warming. He set a goal of stopping the growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025 and reducing emissions thereafter. But rather than plan for 2025—which is another two or three presidencies away—Bush should immediately fix his ethanol policy, which is increasing GHG emissions and raising food prices not only in the United States but all over the world.

American companies are still trying to digest the ethanol mandates passed by Congress last December. Congress mandated the production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuels this year; that number will gradually increase until it reaches 36 billion gallons in 2022. In addition, ethanol producers receive a tax break of 51 cents a gallon, and corn growers receive huge subsidies that may increase in the next farm bill.

Using ethanol for energy was supposed to be a win-win situation: the United States has so much corn, we were told, that it could use some to make gasoline, thereby reducing its GHG emissions and also reducing its dependence on foreign oil. But in the real world, unintended consequences are all too frequent.

Take the linkage between ethanol and GHG emissions. Scientists now believe that the production of ethanol actually creates more harmful emissions than it prevents. Indeed, Princeton University professor Timothy Searchinger and other researchers have concluded that “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.”

In addition, ethanol production is contributing to increases in the price of food, both in the United States and abroad. Not only is corn being made into ethanol, but other crops are being abandoned in favor of corn.

Rather than set a new goal for stabilizing GHG emissions, Congress and President Bush could do one simple thing that would truly honor of Earth Day: eliminate ethanol subsidies and get rid of the mandates.

By the way, that is what all subsidies do by nature. Subsidies never work.

Consumer-Last Energy Plan

Instead of backing away from an ethanol plan gone haywire, Congress is looking at compounding the problem with yet another ridiculous energy bill. Please consider Senate Democrats unveil new energy tax plan.

Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources.

The Consumer-First Energy Act -- assembled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key Democrats -- would also stop the Energy Department from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until crude oil prices average $75 a barrel or less for 90 days.

The Democrats' energy bill seeks to lay the blame for record-high gasoline prices over $3.60 a gallon on the Bush administration, big oil companies like Exxon and the OPEC oil cartel.

It also seeks to rein in speculation in oil markets, which Senate Democrats see as a prime mover behind crude oil prices which hit a record high of $123.80 a barrel on Wednesday.

The bill would prevent companies that trade U.S. oil futures from routing transactions through off-shore markets to evade position limits and requires the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to boost margin requirements for all oil futures transactions.

However, CFTC Chairman Walter Lukken told a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that speculators were not behind the jump in oil prices and he warned that higher margins would push energy trading off government-regulated exchanges.

"I think there would be a migration off exchanges," said Lukken, adding that higher margins act like "a tax on traders."

Congressional Lack Of Thinking

Eliminating tax breaks for oil companies is reasonable enough given that all tax breaks and subsidies across the board should be eliminated. However, the rest of the bill is nonsense.

Once again no one takes the problem back to the original source.

One problem is peak oil, and I propose the free market would find a solution, if left alone. Instead we have been sidetracked from finding a real solution by an inane ethanol program, that divert resources from finding that solution.

Is Speculation A Problem?

William Engdahl writing for Financial Sense says Perhaps 60% of Today's Oil Price is Pure Speculation.

I am not going to debate the merits or demerits of the article. However, if speculation is a problem, then perhaps one might ask why speculation is a problem. But Congress is absolutely incapable of this kind of thinking.

If speculation is a problem (and it's easy to believe that is the case), then it is caused by monetary policies worldwide that are encouraging speculation. After all, speculation fueled an enormous housing bubble, not just in the US, but worldwide.

So if one wants to stop such speculation, the all one has to do is address the root cause of the problem: global monetary policies by the Fed in particular, central banks in general, Congress, and governmental bodies elsewhere.

But No!

Check out the actual solutions countries are coming up with.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is discussing the situation in Global free market for food and energy faces biggest threat in decades.

India shocked the markets yesterday by suspending trading in futures contracts for a range of farm products in a bid to clamp down on alleged speculators and curb inflation, now running at 7.6pc.

The country's Forward Markets Commission said contracts for soybean oil, chana (chickpeas), potatoes, and rubber had been banned for four months, even though a report by the Indian parliament last month concluded that soaring food costs had almost nothing to do with the futures contracts.

Traders in Mumbai slammed the ban as an act of brazen political populism.

Kazakhstan has prohibited wheat exports. Russia has slapped a 40pc export duty on shipments, and Pakistan a 35pc duty.

China, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philipines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam have all imposed export controls or forms of rationing to ease the crisis.

Argentina has banned beef exports and placed an export duty on soybeans.

Jim Newsome, the head of the New York Mercantile Exchange, said trading curbs on hedge funds woold achieve nothing. "All you're going to do is potentially cripple the US exchanges and move that flow of trading to non-US regulated markets," he told the Wall Street Journal.

Brazen Political Populism

Caroline Baum knocks another one out of the park with Election Year + $124 Crude Oil = Silly Solutions.

The confluence of record oil prices and a presidential election year is proving to be an irresistible combination for Congress and the candidates, all of whom happen to be members of that esteemed body.

Two of the three U.S. presidential contenders are promoting the idea of a federal gas-tax holiday this summer. Two of the three (a different duo) want to enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a bad idea whose time has apparently come (again).

One of the three wants both. That would be Hillary Clinton, Democratic senator from New York.

Populist millionaire Clinton (millionaires make the best populists) has lashed out at the oil companies, accusing them of market manipulation and collusion. She's railed against speculators, those evil traders who buy when everyone else is selling and sell when the crowd is buying.

She labeled the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries a monopoly and threatened to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization. (Her Democratic opponent, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, inconveniently pointed out that Clinton hasn't signed on as a sponsor to a bill that would make oil- producing and exporting cartels illegal.)

Tax Gas Holiday

Writing about the proposed gasoline tax holiday which Clinton favors but Obama does not, Baum goes on to say:

"If the stated goal of government policy is energy conservation, energy independence and the development of alternative sources of energy, lowering the price of gasoline -- waiving the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal excise tax for even three months -- is counterproductive. The demand curve is downward sloping, which is a fancy way of saying that at a lower price consumers demand more."

That ought to be obvious, especially to Hillary. So either she is not as bright as people think she is, or she is more guilty of political pandering than her opponents. Take your pick. I am sticking with what I said in Hillary's Scorched Earth Policy.

Instead of addressing the real problem, political pandering has now gone global, with Hillary Clinton as the top cheerleader.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

It's a sad day...

No one in Washington wants to address and correct the problems. Instead, they insist on dancing around them for the sake of short term advantages (votes).

Ethanol doesn't have to come from corn and at what point will common sense prevail over greed?

[loki]

It sounds like that person is calling for open/free markets... i.e. get the government out of the economy.

I'm sure some of you think i sound like 68 : rwd vs fwd ... i'm for limited government.

the oil speculation is mostly driven by the price of gold, then speculation comes in.

price of gold has come down compared to a few months ago, but inflation hurts everyone that's not very well off.

The FED is illegal, and the paper money everyone uses, even I, is worthless.

It's a sad day...

No one in Washington wants to address and correct the problems. Instead, they insist on dancing around them for the sake of short term advantages (votes).

Ethanol doesn't have to come from corn and at what point will common sense prevail over greed?

Corn is hella energy intensive to grow. industrial hemp would be a great way to really drive down the price of biofuels.

[capriceman]

hemp

LEGALIZE IT!!!!

[Blake Noble]

Bush is one of the many great disgraces to America in recent times. This man has done nothing for this country, other than totally mismanage it and leave it in a state of ruin. And fixing the damage he has done will take quite some time to repair, it will not be totally repaired within the next presidential term.

It is because of the state that this country is in that I wish to spend some time in Europe after college while the $h! in the USA continues to hit the fan.

I despise Bush's flawed energy policies; it is one example in a series of many blundering mistakes this man has done during his rather painful tenure in Washington. He understands nothing about what needs to be done to make this country energy efficient. Ethanol should be used, yes, but it should not come from corn. Using cellulosic sources would be the best way to go in my opinion, and I hope to God that someone in D.C. switches from corn Ethanol to cellulosic Ethanol after the technology to mass produce it comes online sometime in the near future (within the next decade, I assume, from what I understand).

Cellulosic Ethanol offers much lower emissions compared to corn-based Ethanol fuels, is cheaper on a mile-per-dollar basis (cost is about a buck), yields a great energy return, and is very easy to renew. If we can get the technology online to use it, I want to see it being used, no excuses.

Power stations should never use fossil fuels as a power source. NEVER. Every last one of them should be mandated to run on one of four options: solar, wind, water, or a closely monitored nuclear source.

And that is only the beginning to set things straight. Bush will not do it, and I highly doubt anyone else in Washington would either.

Edited May 11, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[loki]

LEGALIZE IT!!!!

then it could be taxed and we wouldn't spend $300million+ (i don't have a reference for this number) enforcing it.

[loki]

and I highly doubt anyone else in Washington would either.

how about someone that knows and likes what the constitution says? it is (supposed to be) the supreme law of the land...

[Blake Noble]

how about someone that knows and likes what the constitution says? it is (supposed to be) the supreme law of the land...

I have no idea which politician out there today that would be. Most politicians are nothing more than money-mongering lawyers and the like that buy their way into political power to stroke their own bloated egos and to tend to their crooked, self-beneficial political agendas. There are many politicians out there that are basically nothing more than petty criminals that deserve to be in a maximum-security correctional facility.

[Blake Noble]

You know, the politically-related angst I am seeing from the civilians of America (myself included) makes me wonder how much longer will it be before the people will speak up, loud and clear, and make a large effort to take this country back from its poorly corrupted state.

Whoever becomes president of this nation after Bush had better start making great strides in restoring this country from the minute they are sworn into office and they had better do what is right for the people of this country, not for their own personal agendas, or any other politician's, for that matter. If not, I fear the growing unrest in this country will have unwanted consequences for them in the later stages of their term in Washington.

Edited May 11, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Blake Noble]

then it could be taxed and we wouldn't spend $300million+ (i don't have a reference for this number) enforcing it.

Marijuana is no worse than drinking, really. Actually, drinking is worse.

Not that I advocate either, I am just stating a simple fact.

[loki]

Marijuana is no worse than drinking, really. Actually, drinking is worse.

Not that I advocate either, I am just stating a simple fact.

yes, and look what happened during prohibition.

[thegriffon]

Marijuana is no worse than drinking, really. Actually, drinking is worse.

Not that I advocate either, I am just stating a simple fact.

Getting stoned on alcohol may be worse, at least in the sort term, but not drinking. With marijuana though, there is no point taking it unless you're trying to get stoned. If the loss of control in getting stoned is not bad enough then the long-term health consequences from abuse are just as bad, and usually worse in terms of mental health. This is not propaganda from "the man", it is real. Like other hallucinogens, marijuana damages your ability to tell fantasy from reality, causing paranoia and schizophrenia long after you stop using. Alcohol may have a more immediate effect, and cause other long-term health problems from over-indulgence, but long-term metal health issues from acute vitamin-b deficiency requires a severity of abuse that most people can't manage, even as alcoholics.

[thegriffon]

then it could be taxed and we wouldn't spend $300million+ (i don't have a reference for this number) enforcing it.

Anything taxed people will try and get tax-free. What do you think the Secret Service does all day? It is a unit of the IRS.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Getting stoned on alcohol may be worse, at least in the sort term, but not drinking. With marijuana though, there is no point taking it unless you're trying to get stoned. If the loss of control in getting stoned is not bad enough then the long-term health consequences from abuse are just as bad, and usually worse in terms of mental health. This is not propaganda from "the man", it is real. Like other hallucinogens, marijuana damages your ability to tell fantasy from reality, causing paranoia and schizophrenia long after you stop using. Alcohol may have a more immediate effect, and cause other long-term health problems from over-indulgence, but long-term metal health issues from acute vitamin-b deficiency requires a severity of abuse that most people can't manage, even as alcoholics.

Is this true Camino? :rotflmao:

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

It sounds like that person is calling for open/free markets... i.e. get the government out of the economy.

I'm sure some of you think i sound like 68 : rwd vs fwd ... i'm for limited government.

the oil speculation is mostly driven by the price of gold, then speculation comes in.

price of gold has come down compared to a few months ago, but inflation hurts everyone that's not very well off.

The FED is illegal, and the paper money everyone uses, even I, is worthless.

Corn is hella energy intensive to grow. industrial hemp would be a great way to really drive down the price of biofuels.

Hemp is very useful for a variety of things. I once read somewhere that DuPont had it banned (by lobbying Congress) because they had invented Nylon. Before Nylon, hemp was mainly used for rope. AFAIK, hemp can be grown and used for personal items (i.e. you can make yourself a sweater) however it is illegal to distribute and sell. Or maybe it is illegal is large quantities. (I can't remember exactly)

FWIW, hemp is not the same thing as Marijuanna... It's missing that crucial THC substance.

Edited May 11, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Bush is one of the many great disgraces to America in recent times. This man has done nothing for this country, other than totally mismanage it and leave it in a state of ruin. And fixing the damage he has done will take quite some time to repair, it will not be totally repaired within the next presidential term.

It is because of the state that this country is in that I wish to spend some time in Europe after college while the $h! in the USA continues to hit the fan.

I despise Bush's flawed energy policies; it is one example in a series of many blundering mistakes this man has done during his rather painful tenure in Washington. He understands nothing about what needs to be done to make this country energy efficient. Ethanol should be used, yes, but it should not come from corn. Using cellulosic sources would be the best way to go in my opinion, and I hope to God that someone in D.C. switches from corn Ethanol to cellulosic Ethanol after the technology to mass produce it comes online sometime in the near future (within the next decade, I assume, from what I understand).

Cellulosic Ethanol offers much lower emissions compared to corn-based Ethanol fuels, is cheaper on a mile-per-dollar basis (cost is about a buck), yields a great energy return, and is very easy to renew. If we can get the technology online to use it, I want to see it being used, no excuses.

Power stations should never use fossil fuels as a power source. NEVER. Every last one of them should be mandated to run on one of four options: solar, wind, water, or a closely monitored nuclear source.

And that is only the beginning to set things straight. Bush will not do it, and I highly doubt anyone else in Washington would either.

I'm really worried that this whole corn mess, combined with big oil and its $$$ will just destroy the biofuel movement in general. The typical american probably isn't informed enough (or doesn't care to become informed enough) to know that Corn is NOT the best source for Ethanol. And articles like these are only reinforcing the negativity.

Wonder how much it has to do with the american automakers 'leg up' on ethanol vehicles and/or Japan Incs 'leg up' on hybrids. Could they be lobbying against ethanol?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

You know, the politically-related angst I am seeing from the civilians of America (myself included) makes me wonder how much longer will it be before the people will speak up, loud and clear, and make a large effort to take this country back from its poorly corrupted state.

Whoever becomes president of this nation after Bush had better start making great strides in restoring this country from the minute they are sworn into office and they had better do what is right for the people of this country, not for their own personal agendas, or any other politician's, for that matter. If not, I fear the growing unrest in this country will have unwanted consequences for them in the later stages of their term in Washington.

Yeah... I think it's funny.

Post 2001 I was pretty anti-american (although my heart still bleeds red, white and blue for September 11th and what this country was) and anyone who has seen my posts here knows that. But back then what I believed was frowned upon and not accepted. Fast forward 7 years and my beliefs are the same beliefs of 90% of my age group.

I hate to break negative on you guys, but I don't think it'll matter much either way. Most people in this country are so disempowered that they're pretty much "along for the ride" either way. Used to I would say that a common bond of being american would pull this country together and allow us to push for change. However, I don't even see that happening either. On top of being the most individualistic society in the world, this country is so diverse and filled with people who would rather identify with their homeland than our country that we will NEVER organize into anything that remotely matters. You can see it in every aspect of our lives from 'globalization' of our economy and purchases (i.e. not buying american because it's american) to globalization of our identity and tastes. EVERYONE in america seems to think that every other civilization in the world is superior to ours in so many ways. Now the ugly truth is rearing its head IMO.

This culture is in the pits and it's only going to get worse.

I'm no fan of communism, but the collectivist mindset is a powerful tool to have when you're dealing with a global economy. Look no further than Asia Inc. for proof that supporting your businesses and your culture will allow you to excel and prosper.

Edited May 11, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[loki]

This culture is in the pits and it's only going to get worse.

I'm no fan of communism, but the collectivist mindset is a powerful tool to have when you're dealing with a global economy. Look no further than Asia Inc. for proof that supporting your businesses and your culture will allow you to excel and prosper.

calling another person american is pretty hard when you can call them tons of other "labels"

not so much communism here, but general socialism/big government.

[Camino LS6]

Is this true Camino? :rotflmao:

And you single me out for an answer on this why?

Way too much to respond to in this thread. But, suffice it to say that alchohol (the sort that you drink, not ethanol), causes more damage to the health and wealth of the US than all illegal drugs combined by something like a factor of 10.

Marijuana prohibition is no less an absurd policy than alchohol prohibition was, and the history of this prohibition shows that it is based on far more shaky ground ethically than alchohol proibition ever was. Marijuana was intentionally demonized for political and economic gain, not out of any true concern for public health. It is hypocrisy at its finest, and marijuana remains illegal because so much political capital is invested in that status quo that no poltician dare be honest about the subject - let alone introduce rational reform.

The "drug war" is nothing short of a collosal waste of resources and excuse for the abrogation of rights and freedoms second only to those now taking place in the name of "homeland security"

Oh, and the original article is an agenda - driven bit of propaganda meant to stunt the growth of biofuels in this country.

[Oracle of Delphi]

And you single me out for an answer on this why?

Because you are older and wiser than I am, I don't remember the 70's as well as you do.

[Camino LS6]

Because you are older and wiser than I am, I don't remember the 70's as well as you do.

And don't you forget it! :AH-HA_wink:

[loki]

Oh, and the original article is an agenda - driven bit of propaganda meant to stunt the growth of biofuels in this country.

if biofuels were such a good idea, why would they need subsidies?

I'm all for biofuels, there are just much much better means to that end than with corn.

just remember, the beef industry thrives only cause of low food prices, and at least some food prices are subsidized through taxes, or the lack of grown food is subsidized too. If global warming is real, meat is much more energy intensive than anything grown. not only causing more CO2 to be produced, but also tons more methane, CH4, and that is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

So the environmentalists are screwing everyone...but the rich.

edit .. i forgot about the pork industry... and that also causes some of the worst water pollution when those areas flood.

Edited May 12, 2008 by loki

[Camino LS6]

if biofuels were such a good idea, why would they need subsidies?

I'm all for biofuels, there are just much much better means to that end than with corn.

Of course there are, and they are being developed as we speak. However, most of the negative articles are full of extrapolations based on Corn being the only source that will ever be and that no advances will ever take place while exaggerating or fabricating the supposed negatives of corn derived ethanol. The fact is that ethanol production has little or nothing to do with food prices - that's a myth.

Ask yourself just who might benefit from such negative publicity about corn ethanol.

[Camino LS6]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...,0,481881.story

[Blake Noble]

Ask yourself just who might benefit from such negative publicity about corn ethanol.

I will make a guess: Big Oil?

It does not matter which form of Ethanol you support, Big Oil does make a gain from every bit of negative press against any form of Ethanol fuels.

I still think that cellulosic Ethanol, however, is the long-term answer versus corn Ethanol if it can be mass produced, which there is no reason why we cannot fully develop such technology.

[Camino LS6]

That's true, YJ.

But Corn ethanol is driving the necessary infrastructure and support technology while providing a domestic alternative fuel. It also is being used much more locally than oil-based fuels are and being produced in a larger number of small facilities run by a larger number of independent businesses. It also produces viable and saleable by-products, benefits American farmers and other workers, and revilatizes local economies. Not to mention that the levels of efficiency, methods of production, and networks of distribution are all improving with great speed. This industry is still in its infancy with its potential completely unrealized. To treat it as a finite, known quantity is just plain foolish.

In short it is everything that Big Oil hates and cannot be.

Ethanol from various sources, including corn will form a part of the solution going forward. It is irresponsible and deceptive to demonize it as recent articles have attempted to do. The notion of any single "silver bullet" for our energy needs must be tossed aside as the useless measure that it is. The solution will come from the very variety of energy technologies now being developed - all should have our full support.

[loki]

I will make a guess: Big Oil?

It does not matter which form of Ethanol you support, Big Oil does make a gain from every bit of negative press against any form of Ethanol fuels.

I still think that cellulosic Ethanol, however, is the long-term answer versus corn Ethanol if it can be mass produced, which there is no reason why we cannot fully develop such technology.

actually "big oil" gets subsidies to make it the 15:85 mix required...maybe not subsides, but they have to add the gas, so they still get some profit from it. 100% can't be sold because of liquor laws by guess who.. the federal government.

it's like saying lets go nuclear instead of this false "clean coal" issue, but wait, we have tons of hazardous waste that we can't refine because of nuclear nonproliferation acts and thus would cause huge more amount of pollution from mining and then we'd need 5 more yucca mounts if we expanded nuclear power. : it's a great idea but prior legislation has dwindled our choices down to slightly better "alternatives".

[Camino LS6]

actually "big oil" gets subsidies to make it the 15:85 mix required...maybe not subsides, but they have to add the gas, so they still get some profit from it. 100% can't be sold because of liquor laws by guess who.. the federal government.

it's like saying lets go nuclear instead of this false "clean coal" issue, but wait, we have tons of hazardous waste that we can't refine because of nuclear nonproliferation acts and thus would cause huge more amount of pollution from mining and then we'd need 5 more yucca mounts if we expanded nuclear power. : it's a great idea but prior legislation has dwindled our choices down to slightly better "alternatives".

You bring up a great point here, antiquated laws restrict us in absurd ways all across the spectrum. Congress should spend an entire session on repealing or adapting existing laws to remove pointless barriers to progress, rather than piling on more.

[loki]

You bring up a great point here, antiquated laws restrict us in absurd ways all across the spectrum. Congress should spend an entire session on repealing or adapting existing laws to remove pointless barriers to progress, rather than piling on more.

but you disagree : laws that mandate things are bad ?

mandates (legislation) only elevate (prolong needed) progress or lower our expectations.

it's like saying if gas was as expensive here as it has been in europe for the past 15 years, we still would have had the explosion of SUV's with the same mileage ratings/actual..hence not moved to anything closer to euro car size / efficiency.

With e-85, it can be good, but the public will think currently it's better than gas (for the environment), when it could be worse than gas with the efficiency factored in.

sorry, I think there are just so many hypocritical things wrong with how the ethanol industry has come about previously ( in the USA ).... other than the current/future cellulosic ethanol plans that should/could be productive w/o tax payer subsidies.

with a market that is ready for bio fuels now, if no subsidies were payed, i'd bet we'd have gas ~$6 a gallon and the new ethanol plants could make it for $2-3 /gallon. that would show how truely ready the market is for it or not. and then supply and demand would alter those prices till ethanol could make tons of money on what they sold and thusly increase the supply quickly.

edit: about your previous "myth ethanol raises prices" i agree, that's just normal inflation that's been pretty rampant in the past few years.

Edited May 12, 2008 by loki

[Camino LS6]

but you disagree : laws that mandate things are bad ?

mandates (legislation) only elevate (prolong needed) progress or lower our expectations.

it's like saying if gas was as expensive here as it has been in europe for the past 15 years, we still would have had the explosion of SUV's with the same mileage ratings/actual..hence not moved to anything closer to euro car size / efficiency.

With e-85, it can be good, but the public will think currently it's better than gas (for the environment), when it could be worse than gas with the efficiency factored in.

sorry, I think there are just so many hypocritical things wrong with how the ethanol industry has come about previously ( in the USA ).... other than the current/future cellulosic ethanol plans that should/could be productive w/o tax payer subsidies.

with a market that is ready for bio fuels now, if no subsidies were payed, i'd bet we'd have gas ~$6 a gallon and the new ethanol plants could make it for $2-3 /gallon. that would show how truely ready the market is for it or not. and then supply and demand would alter those prices till ethanol could make tons of money on what they sold and thusly increase the supply quickly.

edit: about your previous "myth ethanol raises prices" i agree, that's just normal inflation that's been pretty rampant in the past few years.

I'm not certain what you mean by this post, but the truth is that the criteria used to brand ethanol with an anti-environment stamp are the product of deeply flawed thinking. As for subsidies, the expansion of ethanol production and distribution needs to be pushed forward by all means available. Speed is of the essence. I view this as nothing short of a national security issue.

[PurdueGuy]

it's like saying lets go nuclear instead of this false "clean coal" issue, but wait, we have tons of hazardous waste that we can't refine because of nuclear nonproliferation acts and thus would cause huge more amount of pollution from mining and then we'd need 5 more yucca mounts if we expanded nuclear power. : it's a great idea but prior legislation has dwindled our choices down to slightly better "alternatives".

I was just at an ANS meeting Thursday discussing this very thing (recycling reactor fuel), and there are a number of newer processes that have different material outputs to address the proliferation concerns. The other issue that comes up is that nuclear fuel is so cheap right now, recycling adds about 10% cost to the process, and results in a fuel that is more likely to have problems in the reactor than once-through fuels, so right now the utilities would rather just use once-through fuel anyway. It's going to have to happen eventually anyway, though, as storage and fuel costs go up. Kinda crazy that 95% of "nuclear waste" is uranium, and it just needs the 5% that's not removed to be ready for the next go-around.

Nuclear can, should, and will grow, and recycling will happen eventually as well. It would be pretty cool to see the day that Yucca Mt sees a negative material flow.

[siegen]

Just in time for today’s Earth Day festivities, President Bush has announced a new initiative to combat global warming.

Industrial sized air conditioners positioned strategerically around the north and south poles?

[traumadog]

Just to add my $0.02...

The concept of cheap oil is what got us into this problem in the first place. If gasoline was priced at $4/gal (in today's dollars) back in the 1950's, then I'm sure that the "urban sprawl" that is LA would have been MUCH different, and the need for a car-based economy would have been much less.

However, we have the cards we're dealt with today, and it's going to take $4/gal-plus gas to stimulate the production of other sources of energy that didn't exist when personal freedom was so cheap.

Now whether or not it's cellulosic ethanol or nuclear power generation, or dispersed solar dishes powering Sterling engines remains to be seen - I bet it's a mish-mash of all of these that will get the job done - but all of them will NOT succeed if energy prices drop again.

And FWIW - I think the best way for the government to stimulate alternative-energy development is to keep "standard-energy" source-cost relatively more expensive - whether that's through taxation or incentives.

[loki]

And FWIW - I think the best way for the government to stimulate alternative-energy development is to keep "standard-energy" source-cost relatively more expensive - whether that's through taxation or incentives.

just quickly.. energy has gone up because of the inflation tax. don't know what i mean , watch the vid in my sig. the government doesn't need to do anything to push "energy" higher.

[CARBIZ]

China is building a new coal-fired electricity plant every week. What makes Congress think that anything they do will have diddly-squat impact on global warming or future energy prices?

There needs to be a paradigm shift in the way this planet thinks. Governments of all types have become too big and unwieldy. Layers upon layers of bureacracy and regulations are eventually going to collapse under their own weight. Besides, it isn't the elected government that is running the show any more anyway - they are just window dressing. It is the lawyers, the lobbyists and the career Civil Servants that run the show. The average citizen has tuned out. Maybe the government should legalize marijuana - that way we could all get stoned and forget about Washington and Ottawa! Not only that, Bush could probably finance Iraq just on the taxes of pot alone!

The so-called war on drugs is just another example of our Collective Insanity. They would probably ban alcohol if it were invented today! Or if they weren't making so much damned money taxing it. The entire police establishment in both our countries are built upon 'morality.' Just look at the budgets that your local police department gets for chasing hookers, drug dealers and opium dens, compared to the Homicide Squad. It is scandalous, really. I much prefer the bars and clubs where drugs are turned a blind eye to: the patrons are friendlier, 'easier' and fights don't break out. Go into your typical bar/club where drunks hang out, and there are always knifings, shootings or general mayhem. Ever see pictures of the Summer of Love: did those people go around beating each other up? And as to the issue of crimes being commited for drugs and by organized crime - well, HELLO! When something is banned, artificially inflated (hmm, like the price of oil?) in price, of course crime is going to be involved.

My doctor told me, point blank, that alcohol is pure poison to our bodies: from the moment it enters our bloodstream, it destroys our stomach, liver, kidneys, brain and depresses our immunity system. None of that is in dispute. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies on the effects of alcohol, both short term and long term. He's a bit of a maverick, but he said (off the record, of course) that he would rather see his patients (occasionally) do coke or ecstasy over alcohol any day. If you sift through the utter propoganda and outrageous BS dispensed by the police establishment, government and self-interest groups, it is hard to find any real evidence as to the effects of drug use on the general population. Reefer Madness anyone? We laugh at the movie today, but I've seen other equally egregious 'studies' commissioned since.

[loki]

....

"you can't legislate morality" yet that's what most of both sides do...

[loki]

I'm not certain what you mean by this post, but the truth is that the criteria used to brand ethanol with an anti-environment stamp are the product of deeply flawed thinking. As for subsidies, the expansion of ethanol production and distribution needs to be pushed forward by all means available (you mean socialist means?). Speed is of the essence. I view this as nothing short of a national security issue.

sorry, i do think i was a little hasteful in that post.

you said you agree that old legislation gets in the way of economic progress today. the author of the article started out by saying legislation typically causes more problems than it tries to fix. so unless the legislation is repealing past laws, there is a >99% chance it will only end up hurting us more. so, how could new legislation spur better solutions, faster, without having drawbacks?

Yes, energy independence would be a very great thing ( i wrote a paper about it 2? years ago ), but if it means we would keep ourselves from buying a cheaper supply of energy from else where, that could only hurt us.

Brazil is supposedly going to have an enormous amount of drilled oil projects getting started in the next 10 years. and we only get to drill of shores...WTF?! wouldn't energy independence be greater if we don't have to wait for those "breakthroughs"? and to help push a transition, have the gas tax go up maybe $.02 a year. that's only an option, not what i ( and lots of others ) would want.

Edited May 13, 2008 by loki

[ehaase]

Now whether or not it's cellulosic ethanol or nuclear power generation, or dispersed solar dishes powering Sterling engines remains to be seen - I bet it's a mish-mash of all of these that will get the job done - but all of them will NOT succeed if energy prices drop again.

I agree with this - it's going to take a lot of things - including more domestic oil production and a lot more nuclear energy, as well as some ethanol, better batteries, cars that get over 40 mpg, more mass transit, wind and solar power, etc. - to meet our future energy needs.

[PurdueGuy]

overhauling the railroad system so it's more cost competitive with tractor trailers would be helpful too. Locomotives pulling trains are waaaay more efficient than tractor trailers.

[loki]

overhauling the railroad system so it's more cost competitive with tractor trailers would be helpful too. Locomotives pulling trains are waaaay more efficient than tractor trailers.

yes. but railroads don't get near the subsidies from government as roads and airlines get.

[Camino LS6]

sorry, i do think i was a little hasteful in that post.

you said you agree that old legislation gets in the way of economic progress today. the author of the article started out by saying legislation typically causes more problems than it tries to fix. so unless the legislation is repealing past laws, there is a >99% chance it will only end up hurting us more. so, how could new legislation spur better solutions, faster, without having drawbacks?

Yes, energy independence would be a very great thing ( i wrote a paper about it 2? years ago ), but if it means we would keep ourselves from buying a cheaper supply of energy from else where, that could only hurt us.

Brazil is supposedly going to have an enormous amount of drilled oil projects getting started in the next 10 years. and we only get to drill of shores...WTF?! wouldn't energy independence be greater if we don't have to wait for those "breakthroughs"? and to help push a transition, have the gas tax go up maybe $.02 a year. that's only an option, not what i ( and lots of others ) would want.

What I believe is that we are 30 years late already getting this show on the road, and that the government must play a part in making it happen. If we wait for the market to do so, I have some real fears that the country won't be around to save anymore. Yes, our government often screws up even the simplest things, but this is the critical issue of the day in my view. As I have said before I see it as a national security threat, which is certainly the constitutional province of our government. Not only should the government be involved, it is bound by the constitution to be involved - at least that's how I see it.

[loki]

What I believe is that we are 30 years late already getting this show on the road, and that the government must play a part in making it happen. If we wait for the market to do so, I have some real fears that the country won't be around to save anymore. Yes, our government often screws up even the simplest things, but this is the critical issue of the day in my view. As I have said before I see it as a national security threat, which is certainly the constitutional province of our government. Not only should the government be involved, it is bound by the constitution to be involved - at least that's how I see it.

I'm not saying the market can do no wrong, but as one wrong... look at the prius being used as a highway vehicle.

The country can always be saved by going back to our tradition, the constitution....something russia doesn't have, and seems like it's heading back to more socialism instead of more freedom.

we have endangered this nation because it has become the world's police, something our founding fathers warned against in statements like "friends with everyone" and no "entangling alliances".

the constitution also doesn't say the government should or have the power to mess with the economy. yes, national security is why we have a federalist government....but we've been becoming "Rome" since the early 20th century.

As I have said before I see it as a national security threat, which is certainly the constitutional province of our government. Not only should the government be involved, it is bound by the constitution to be involved - at least that's how I see it.

I see those as hypocritical statements... because the main purpose of the constitution is to protect our freedom from burdensome government, which is what has not happened and will keep not happening till government is minimized to defending our borders and protecting us from other things to big for states/small groups of people can do.

200 years ago, people were not politicians for life, they were not paid enough to survive, they were much more in touch with what was going on in the country and were affected the same from laws as everyone else. no one was a career politician...we need more of those people in washington...more engineers, doctors, teachers in congress, not know it all lawyers.

[Camino LS6]

It is not hypocrisy - I see the greatest threat to the country in our position relative to oil dependence for a multitude of reasons. You know, "all enemies foriegn and domestic".

When it comes to the rest of your political stand, you are preaching to the choir concerning me. I am a registered Libertarian - it is the party that comes closest to what I believe in politically.

I do have a trait most Libertarians lack however, I'm a bit of a pragmatist as well. :AH-HA_wink: